Bleszinski, who left Gears of War maker Epic games last October to take a break from game development, writes on his personal Tumblr that he thinks the time when most devices require a consistent Internet connection is coming sooner than later. "My gut is telling me that an always online future is probably coming," he wrote. "It’s coming fast, and possibly to the majority of the devices you enjoy."

While some gamers are still loudly complaining about the required server connections in PC games like SimCity and Diablo 3, Bleszinski notes that the former game is "selling briskly," and the latter has moved over 12 million units. "I would bet money that without the always online elements of Diablo 3 that it would have sold half of that," Bleszinski wrote, pointing an implicit finger at software piracy as the main reason for always-online requirements.

What about situations where people might want to play a game or console in some remote location without reliable high-speed Internet? Bleszinski replies that such situations are "the edge case... the week-long vacation to the cabin is only 30 hours of not playing a game or a device that’s built for much more. Technology doesn’t advance by worrying about the edge case." (Emphasis in original.)

He also pointed out that Microsoft's decision not to support dial-up connections on the original Xbox 360 was seen as a "bold move" in 2005, but that technology quickly caught up to the company's decision. "Well behaved people rarely make history. Deal with it," he summed up.

As far as Orth's departure from Microsoft, Bleszinski noted that we'll never know what really happened behind the scenes, but he still decried the Internet mob mentality that developed around Orth's statements. "If I departed from Epic every time I said something dumb I wouldn’t have made it the last 10 years there."

The problem is implementing it NOW, when the large percentage of consumers, let alone people who would acquire these devices, likely doesn't have the kind of network to support such a system.

Certainly throwing things out there to stress the infrastructure gives the ISPs reasons to want to expand or upgrade their network, but this isn't the kind of reason to do so. The widening adoption of services like Netflix is what's doing it.

10 posts | registered Nov 30, 2012

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

Making computers faster and graphics more realistic and gameplay more compelling is advancing technology, shackling people to the internet against their will doesn't advance anything. I look forward to the day they stop trotting out the tired zomg-pirates! excuses and just make better games.

When it is obvious to all that the internet isn't necessary for a game (Simcity, Hitman:Absolution) and your users start coming up with workarounds to fake the online requirements, you have not created a good user experience.

While I have purchased a few games without realizing their always online nature, on the whole I simply choose not to buy any game that requires a constant connection if I know beforehand. I don't pirate it..I just don't play it period. Online is online, single is single, and that's how I like it.

I'm extremely fortunate to have a softcap of 250 GB and around 98% uptime (both per month). However, I know plenty of people that have extended hours of downtime every month and caps as low as 20 GB. I get that Microsoft and Sony are wetting their pants over piracy. The funny thing is, once that "edge" case is alienated, the next ones in towards the center become the new edge.

This whole thing isn't about stopping piracy, it's about converting gaming from a software sales model to a service sales model. Think World of Warcraft vs. Diablo 3. There aren't very many (if any) service-based console games, but there will be if you can guarantee the console will have a persistent connection.

For the avid gamer, it's not really much different. Say you buy a Call of Duty subscription for $60/yr and you get the new game every year (that you would have bought anyway.) If you're a less avid player, you may subscribe for a few months then cancel (where otherwise you would have bought the game used and the publisher sees none of that cash.)

Will it catch on? Maybe. Assuming Sony uses a significantly different business model, the market will determine the victor in this case.

An edge case is an extreme, not common, case that you STILL must account for. Broadband adoption is 60%ish in the US. So:

1. People without an always on internet connection are not an edge case.2. Even if they were, good engineering practice is to account for it if at all possible.

MS is out of their minds if they think this will go well.

I keep seeing the broadband adoption rate trotted out as an argument against always-online requirements for games and consoles, but there's a huge hole in it that proponents ignore. The more appropriate statistic would be the number of gamers/console owners who've adopted broadband. Nobody gives a rip about grandma in her trailer with dialup when it comes to always-online gaming.

Here's what I don't get. Google has worked hard to make Google Docs work offline, although some fundamental features (like collaboration) necessarily require internet access, but game devs think people will be okay with requiring online access for games which don't even fundamentally need it?

Is this just arrogance, or are they really onto something, and Google (and the rest of the guys, including MS with Office 365, Adobe with downloadable offline versions of products provided in the online subscription, etc) are just throwing dollars in the bin?

I think the potential argument for the game devs might be that anyone who is buying a $300-$400 game console, and willing to buy $40-$50 games to go with it, will almost certainly have a good internet connection. Someone who lacks a good connection, probably cannot afford the console and the games, and is likely to be pirating games, so they are okay with losing those "customers".

I mean, if you want to relegate your install base to the edge case of users who are always online, sure... but in this case I believe always online is the edge case.

I think you're probably right - though I wouldn't be all that surprised to see always online by the END of this console generation, it's likely to be a major issue at the START. So it will come down to how much they jump the gun with their plan...

Until the internet and access to that information is successfully constructed as a right (in the same way that access to a public resource like a library is a right), then I fundamentally disagree with his conclusion.

I'm always confused by the piracy argument from gaming companies. Has there ever been even one study to prove that piracy substantially reduces the number of gaming purchases? Obviously, there are case studies that show that people love to pirate, but does making piracy on a game impossible result in more sales or does it simply result in people who love to pirate looking into other games?

In the wake of former Microsoft employee Adam Orth's controversial tweeted defense of the next Xbox's rumored always-online features (and his subsequent departure from Microsoft Studios), legendary game designer Cliff Bleszinski has come out publicly in support of Orth's comments, saying that those unhappy about an always-online future should "deal with it."

Considering every time US broadband comes up. Someone always talks about how it should be a utility. Well isn't part of the definition of a utility is the expectation of reliability? What good is a utility, if it's mostly down?

An edge case is an extreme, not common, case that you STILL must account for. Broadband adoption is 60%ish in the US. So:

1. People without an always on internet connection are not an edge case.2. Even if they were, good engineering practice is to account for it if at all possible.

MS is out of their minds if they think this will go well.

Of the 40% that doesn't have a broadband connection and can afford the new xbox is the edge case. Which I imagine is a very small fraction of that 40%.

People who live in rural areas of the US with no choice for access are a HUGE percentage of people without broadband. Quite a few of them have money, just not "$35,000 to run a special line just for your Internet service" kind of money. And, no, satellite internet won't cut it for "online only" policies.